Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 36.
“Both choices were ranked somewhat important or very important by at least 95% of the respondents. To our youths, filial piety and having one's own home are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are both almost equally important values. To be clear, strong family relationships did not automatically mean marriage or having children to those surveyed because those were the 10th and 11th choices respectively. One assumption we should question is that offering flats to 28-year-olds would discourage genuine interest in long-term marriage. Is it not possible that some people who want to be married may be discouraged from tying the knot early because they prefer to have financial security before getting hitched and having children? If a single person is allowed to purchase HDB property, whether BTO or resale, earlier, this may well open new prospects to, concomitantly, move on to marriage and parenthood. In addition, the prospect of purchasing a flat at 28 years of age, down from 35, would leave more scope for the growth of one's CPF balances for peace of mind and for retirement adequacy. We must ask whether it is reasonable to continue disallowing singles from purchasing a BTO or resale flat once they are financially able to do so before 35. The Government should look into rolling out more housing choices for singles to purchase public housing at the younger age of 28 rather than 35 currently.”
“A single Singaporean has to be above 35 years of age to purchase a resale public housing flat or to apply for a Build-to-Order 2-room Flexi Flat. The Workers' Party's position is that the eligibility age for singles to buy a flat should be lowered to the age of 28. According to the latest Government census, the proportion of singles has risen across age groups. The increase was most significant for those between 25 and 34 years of age. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of singles among residents aged 25 to 29 rose from 74.6% to 81.6% for males and from 54% to 69% for females. Similarly, the proportion of singles among those aged 30 to 34 rose to 41.9% for males and 32.8% for females. In 2018, then Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong stated in Parliament that as marriage rates among singles under 35 was still high, the age of 35 remained a valid number. Does the Government intend to move from 35 as the magic number? There is a prevailing orthodoxy that Singaporeans should be married by 35 and that offering flats to those of a younger age could somehow discourage marriage. Alternately, there may be an assumption that offering flats to those younger than 35 would jeopardise the value of filial piety. The National Youth Council's 2021 publication on the state of youths in Singapore is helpful in this regard. The publication reports the results of the National Youth Survey 2019 covering those between 15 and 34 years of age. Those surveyed were asked: how important are the following aspirations or life goals in your life? They were given 19 possible choices to rank from not important at all to very important. The top choice selected by our youths was to maintain strong family relationships while the second choice was "to have a place of my own".”
“From a national perspective, is there scope to increase priority for first-timer married couples with children and newly-married couples?”
“It must have happened many times in the past that non-prioritised applicants, for example, second-time applicants got BTO flats while perhaps so-called prioritised applicants did not. Higher chances and multiple chances are just that – chances. It does not matter how many chances an applicant has over others. If they fail, it is still 0% success in getting a flat. If they are really deserving groups, the Government should look into the possibility of giving such groups actual priority. The question, of course, is, who should get the priority and to what extent? Should it remain at 30% for married couples with children, or should this go up to a higher percentage and include even newly-married couples? I am minded to think so. In order for Singaporeans to better prepare for their own BTO plans going forward, would the Government publish the number of applications under each priority scheme as a percentage for every HDB BTO exercise after the selection process is completed? This information would make it clearer to applicants and to market watchers what the current trends point to. This would also prompt proactive adjustment of the policy scheme thresholds to be more attuned to the market and population demands. To conclude, the current system is reminiscent of a previous system in allocating Primary school places. Singaporeans were given priority in the sense that they got more ballot chances than Permanent Residents (PRs), but this meant that, many times, PRs would be successful while Singapore Citizens were not. This has now been changed, of course. The principle is the same when it comes to BTOs. The Government should consider making priority an actuality, rather than, for some – a probability.”
“The HDB's web page lists seven separate priority schemes to book a flat under the Build-To-Order (BTO) or Sales of Balance Flat exercises. My purpose in speaking on them today is to ask whether HDB has explored whether the thresholds of these priority schemes remain fit for purpose, in light of current demand in relation to supply, and under what circumstances does HDB review and adjust them. The Minister for National Development, in his written answer to several Parliamentary Questions in January this year, said that there were 5.5 applications for each BTO flat in 2021, after an even higher 5.8 applications per flat in 2020. While he explained that the numbers include repeat applications and that they increased partly due to the raising of the monthly income ceiling, he agreed that there is, currently, a strong demand for public housing. Taking into consideration this mismatch, the Government should take a look at whether the allocation of HDB flats, including through the use of these schemes, is being done in the fairest and most optimum way possible. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the priority schemes do not truly give priority. They do not ensure that applicants in the schemes get allocated flats over those not within the schemes. The schemes merely increase the probability of being allocated a flat and, thereby, give the appearance of being awarded priority. For example, 30% of BTO flats are set aside for first-timer married couples with children. If more than 30% of applicants are first-timer married couples with children, then there will be a ballot. If a couple is unsuccessful, then they go into another balloting pool, but they could again be unsuccessful.”
“If the Minister makes known the criteria, then economists, urban planners and other experts may study the criteria and give feedback to the Government on their validity or otherwise. And the fourth question is: would the PLH scheme further drive up the prices of developments and resale flats close to PLH estates? The scheme does not admit of gradual differences between PLH projects and non-PLH projects. The distinction is all or nothing. Has the Government done calculations or made an assessment of the likely effects on the prices of non-PLH flats in close proximity to PLH projects? If so, I ask the Minister to share the calculations with this House. These questions need answers, because it is important that the perceived solutions to problems do not create new problems themselves. Ameliorating the lottery effect should not be a gamble. Enhancing Prime Location Public Housing Model”
“The use of the word "lottery" to refer to the allocation of HDB flats in the online domain dates to as far back as 2003. The term "lottery effect" started coming into widespread use in 2015, after flats at The Pinnacle@Duxton reached their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). This lottery effect was explicitly commented on by Minister Lawrence Wong in 2016 when he was asked about it while he was the National Development Minister. He talked about possible measures to curb this effect and the PLH scheme was finally launched in 2021 with the project at Rochor. The second PLH project was launched on 17 February, that is, last month. The PLH scheme continues to raise many questions. The first question is: how was the subsidy clawback determined for Rochor and the Kallang-Whampoa developments? How did the Government arrive at the figure of 6%? The second related question is what is the purpose of the clawback? Is it to avoid high prices for PLH flats, or is it to lower the lottery winnings of PLH flat owners? If it is to avoid high price rises, that may not be the result of the subsidy clawback. Six percent is likely to be included in a future sale price after the MOP, with a very long 89 years left on the lease. Buyers and sellers are likely to simply add the 6% into their overall calculations. The unintended effect could be that prices are driven up even higher than they otherwise would be. The higher the clawback, the higher the prices may be driven up. 2.30 pm The third question concerning the PLH scheme is: how does the HDB determine which development would be considered as being in a prime location? This is not merely being asked to satisfy curiosity.”
“In his speech this morning, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad spoke about workers who earn less than $500. I think he made a clarification of the 20,000 figure but I did not catch what the new figure was. I do not believe the Minister shared it. I apologise if he did. But I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State would share what that number actually is.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two questions. One really builds on the point that the Minister spoke about with regard to the support to build a strong Singapore Core, which is I think the substance of this initiative to review the EP qualifying criteria, exemplified by COMPASS. My question really picks off from a point I raised in the previous Budget, in the Committee of Supply debates last year about the Capability Transfer Programme. Just to enquire whether MOM considers in the renewal of the EPs going forward, a contribution of EP or their companies as a bonus criterion, if there has been a real transfer of skills to the Singapore Core? Whether that could be a part of the system structure in renewing EP holders, getting more EP holders into Singapore in areas there clearly is a need? Because I think this really will address a long-term bugbear that is a perception nonetheless that somehow the foreigners not playing their part in contributing to the growth of the Singapore Core. If there is some data set, some matrix that can show that that is not the case and that actually there is a skills transfer that can be objectively assessed, I think this will be helpful for the programme. Just another question, dealing with the EP framework. I understand today there are probably about 160,000 to 170,000 EP holders. Under the new qualifying criteria, how many EP holders today would not have been issued with an EP, under the new criteria? So, today, we have got a fixed number. I think it is about 166,000 based on last year's data. If the new scheme applied today, how many of these individuals would not actually be given their EP? I am just wondering if the Minister has that information. My final point is a very short one.”
“Thank you, first, to the Minister for clarifying the question. I seek some clarity on the question on SPH Media Trust. When Minister S Iswaran spoke of this arrangement because of the changing nature of the media landscape, the Minister said that SPH will, first, form a new subsidiary and transfer the media-related businesses, properties and some cash and SPH shares and REIT units to the subsidiary. And then, subsequently, if the shareholders give their approval, the subsidiary will be transferred to the CLG. I think the substance of what Mr Leong is getting at is about the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of costs to the taxpayer. So, my question or clarification is: when SPH's proposal was considered by the Government, how far did the Government go to require SPH to transfer segments of its business which would allow the CLG to be self-funded as far as possible in view of the range of assets owned by the SPH group? And what was the nature of those discussions and how much did the Government push, so as to limit the burden on the taxpayer?”
“Either way, it does not extend our time. So, I will just put my question.”
“I do not think that is much of a choice, Mr Chairman.”
“I just went out of the Chamber about five to 10 minutes ago to check and it is still listed as 4.15 pm. But I note the Chairman's point.”
“Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification. I understand from Notice Paper B003 of 2022 the revised "guillotine" time for today is listed as 4.15 pm and not 3.55 pm.”
“Mr Chairman, I did not file a cut for this Ministry but in view of some of the earlier remarks made by the Minister, I have two clarifications. Both pertain to the surveys. I just need to be sure that both were surveys; the first one covered the mandatory death penalty. If I heard the Minister right, he said the Ministry is studying the results. And then, thereafter, Minister went on to say that in the case, for example, for intentional murder, 81% approved of the mandatory death penalty. I think there were three other statistics that he revealed in that part. Can I just confirm then what is the Ministry studying with regard to the mandatory death penalty for this particular survey? The second question pertains to the first survey the Minister referred to, which covered foreigners in countries, I understand the Minister said where some of these drug offenders originate from. Can I confirm that that survey would be made public and not for its own sake but at least people can understand the argument vis-a-vis deterrence quite squarely and also understand the structure of the survey itself?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State. This is with regard to the study that was being referred to by hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng. Has that changed the consideration of the Expert Committee and the Ministry as to the effectiveness of vaccination amongst children, especially those from five to 12? How is the Ministry responding to that study? Is the Ministry undertaking its own independent study in Singapore as to the effectiveness of the vaccine for children above the age of 12?”
“An example was in September 2021 when the SAF was roped in to help deal with calls to MOH as some COVID-19-positive Singaporeans could not secure conveyance to a recovery facility in time. Similar concerns were highlighted during the circuit breaker in 2020 when there was much confusion from businesses about the status of their foreign workers. What lessons have been learnt from these episodes? And is there a plan to beef up tele-services in spite of this age of digitalisation for better citizen-to-state contact?”
“Chairman, in spite of the greater use of smartphones and the evolution towards digitalisation, many, especially seniors, still prefer speaking to a physical individual at the end of a phone line as compared to a bot or an AI-inspired solution. A 2020 study supported by the National Medical Research Council showed that 78% of elderly respondents were uncomfortable with AI interpreting their medical data and providing automated advice. This has to be seen within a wider backdrop of still relatively low Internet usership amongst the elderly. A 2019 IMDA survey showed that only 58% of seniors above 60 are Internet users as compared to 89% of the general population. The Seniors Go Digital initiative that was launched in 2020 helps to provide seniors with basic Internet skills to access Government e-services. The recent spate of banking scams may have also had a psychological impact among some of our elderly with respect to the security of online or electronic services. Only last week, the Singapore Police Force said that a new Singpass QR code scam had surfaced, in which victims are asked to fill out surveys in exchange for monetary reward. Greater public education can go some way to ameliorate these hazards but these scams or security loopholes raise the importance of the availability of alternative channels, such as the maintenance of reliable hotlines, to assure our seniors that access to Government services remain available to them even if they are not online or to seek clarifications promptly. At the same time, occasional feedback still highlights the trouble people face in getting through Government hotlines.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our Chair Ms Sylvia Lim, Members of Parliament He Ting Ru and Louis Chua are not here because they are self-isolating. I just want to state that they take the same position as well.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party would like to record its dissent. Thank you. No off-set package lasts forever.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I think it just reinforces the point that I have been trying to make about the alternative revenue streams that the Workers' Party came up with in the course of this debate, knowing that there are quite fundamental changes taking place worldwide where we need a better fix on what the revenue situation will be. I think the Minister missed out one question that I also put in my speech about the carbon tax and the estimates that the Government has with its increase at the tiers up to 2030. I think those numbers would be appreciated. Even though I take Minister's point, as I mentioned in my earlier clarification, that he does not foresee this to be a revenue generator, if I can put it that way. But I think this is something that we should have a debate about, in good time.”
“Obliged. Speaker, I will not abuse this. Let me just then come to the point before I hand it over to the other colleagues of mine to make clarifications. It was previously said that we have drawn on our reserves equivalent to 20 years of past Budget surpluses. This was the Government position vis-a-vis COVID-19. "We have used a generation's worth of savings to combat a crisis of a generation." My colleague, Mr Louis Chua, asked Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his capacity as Finance Minister previously, after accounting for the draw, where would our reserves be, compared to five years ago and 10 years ago? And he made the point that this really was not answered and he put the question to Finance Minister Lawrence Wong. After having a better fix on the number, $42.9 billion drawn on Past Reserves, where would our reserves be today, as compared to five years ago? Is it higher or is it lower? I think that is a question that can be answered in one word.”
“And we have really made the Government's own approach informed in this House as to how it also takes a certain approach to change how it deals with the reserves mechanism, at quite short intervals – 2008, 2015. We are entering a decade where circumstances are changing quite significantly. The Minister himself recognised in his Budget speech that, I believe, there is a review of even healthcare resourcing at paragraph 239: "We are thinking through this healthier SG strategy carefully. It will entail a review of our resourcing approach and healthcare financing schemes as well as the need for upstream investments and preventive healthcare." So, clearly, the other numbers that were in his speech about potentially where we could be with healthcare expenditure if we do not keep it in check, may not really be what will, eventually, be the outcome, because there is a review going on.”
“In the course of my Budget speech, I did make a point about the revenue that the carbon tax will bring in. I hear the Minister's point. He said it in the beginning, when he opened the debate. He is saying it now. He does not expect carbon tax to bring in new sources of revenue. But still a debate has to be had. What are those numbers? Particularly, when you look at utility prices, utility bills for average Singaporeans, which the Minister says in his speech are going up. I believe he used a 25-year timeline. But if you follow it in a linear fashion, that is $12 by 2030 – an increase. So, those numbers should really be brought forward by the Government so that we can debate these and talk about how people, both at the lower- and middle-income levels, can be supported in a better way. I think the Minister raised a number of other points. We spoke about the various levers. The other WP Members, of course, will chip in and make those clarifications with the Minister. But Mr Louis Chua is not here today. He will be happy to come into this debate, I can assure you, but he is self-isolating, just to be on the safe side. I think he was COVID-19-positive yesterday but it was a false positive. So, I think better for him to stay away. But he will definitely come back to this in the course of what happens with BEPS and actually what are those projections that the Government is working with vis-a-vis its impact. A number of other points, like I said, I will let the other WP Members come in. But I think there is a useful question to ask about the reserves. We have had this exchange in this House a number of times on our position on the reserves. I do not think it is an accurate reflection to say that, first instance, you look at and turn to the reserves. That is not true.”
“This really brings up the other point the Minister raised about red herrings, that, somehow, when the Opposition asks for revenue and expenditure projections, these are red herrings. But it cannot be so. Because, as I have mentioned in my Budget speech, it is something that many jurisdictions do. Hong Kong has a medium range forecast right up to fiscal year 2026/2027. They have got assumptions, of course. You are projecting into the future, so, it cannot be perfect and I think people will give the Government buffer and leeway for that. But that is incredibly important and that is precisely why the Workers' Party put forward different revenue streams. The Minister rounded off at the end about the importance of information, facts. I completely agree with him. But would not this approach not to make a call for information, characterising it as a red herring, but actually just producing that information lead to the outcome that the Minister himself speaks of and reduces the prospect of individuals mischaracterising positions which, one could argue, has also been done in the course of this debate? I think there were arguments made in the extreme which were not put forward by Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament. I do not think anybody suggested raising personal income tax for the upper tier up to 42% to make up for the GST hole. That was not done. But it was, nonetheless, characterised as an Opposition idea. So, I think it is a case of what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. And this is something I hope can actually be alleviated through more projections of what the Government needs, how much it is going to collect, because this will result in a more fruitful debate.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank the Finance Minister, particularly for the acknowledgement towards the Workers' Party for coming up with alternative revenue proposals for the Government's consideration. And we did so, of course, knowing that since the decision to raise GST was announced a few years ago, circumstances have changed. COVID-19 was unanticipated, of course. And core inflation right now is at its highest level in nine years. I think the prices of goods and services are not a point I need to repeat. Minister would know, thanks to CPI information from MAS and MTI, that price pressures will impact Singaporeans, particularly at the low- and middle-income levels. This is even as the question is important with respect to raising the GST at this time. The Minister made some brief points about it. He had thought about it carefully. But I think the question remains: is this a reasonable thing to do in these circumstances? That is the first question. And I think the point arises more acutely when you take into account what market watchers have said about the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0, which may well result in corporate tax revenue gains for Singapore. And I think this is a point that has been raised at the start of the week, coinciding with this Budget debate. To that end, my question is: can I ask what are the Government's current estimates, given that there is an implementation deadline of 2023 for BEPS? What is the range of estimates of the net impact of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 on our corporate income tax revenues? Surely, MOF would have prepared itself for these various scenarios. And can I confirm that MOF does not have these various scenarios planned out?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a quick one, it is not a clarification. Just to confirm with the Minister, the understanding that he had of the WP's alternate proposals are incorrect. And we will clarify in the course of Minister's wrap-up speech, depending of what Minister for Finance says. It is just important for me to put that on the record, because otherwise the media may interpret your interpretations of what we are proposing to be correct. And I just want to put it on record that it is not correct.”
“That clarifies. Can I just confirm if they are not on ComCare, they would not get the WIS?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, just to follow up on the point on the WIS. Indeed, Minister has accurately stated the policy purpose. I am sorry he did not accurately say it; you added something more to it. You said the policy construct is to nudge able-bodied Singaporeans towards gainful employment. I understand that. What I am suggesting is that part-timers may well be able-bodied, casual workers may also be able-bodied, but for various reasons, they cannot take up full-time work. And it is in that spirit that I would forward and advance that they should not be denied the WIS. I hope the Minister can reconsider this because if the number is already smaller, less than half the number that I quoted, I think it is figure 28 of the Labour Force statistics, then all the more, the impact, the fiscal impact is even less. And if we can help this small number of workers and why should we not?”
“How do you balance things in a manner which is more equitable for society, going forward, for a more fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society? That is the thrust of what the Workers' Party had put forward. And to just make the point Minister spoke about a number of taxes, for example, property taxes, alluding to residents in various parts of Singapore who would suffer with raised property taxes. But does the Minister not agree that there were a number of proposals put forward by the Workers' Party? And on a Monday, yesterday, a Business Times article made the point in a different way – that the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) is unlikely to hurt competitiveness and may net Singapore gains in tax revenue. So, I think in the spirit of seeking a more equitable tax distribution, amongst various segments of society, I think the Workers' Party is fully entitled to raise alternate forms of revenue, which we have. So, I disagree with the Minister's characterisation. I also cannot understand why he is baffled because it would be in the course of this debate that the Workers' Party would propose alternate revenue sources. And you have cherry-picked some and criticised them. I think you are entitled to. But if you look at the proposals holistically, you would understand that the Workers' Party has put up alternatives for a rise in GST.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Let me just deal with some of the points raised by the Minister for Manpower. I take his point with regard to the number of workers who could be affected by the changes to the Workfare Income Supplement that a more accurate number would be 20,000, as he suggested. Let me just come back to what the Minister for Finance said in his speech. He said, "I will introduce a minimum income criteria for Workfare at $500 a month to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work". So, that seems to be the policy intent to move them into regular full-time work. Can I clarify from the Minister, even for these individuals who may continue to earn less than $500, going forward, can the Minister confirm that they still will not qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement? And Minister spoke about concessionary Workfare. What does that entail? Is that a lesser amount of Workfare for these individuals who cannot do full-time work, which is the policy intent as it would appear from the Minister for Finance's speech, that he wants to transit these people into full-time work. Does the Minister not agree that there are individuals who just cannot do full-time work for a variety of reasons? Minister then moved on to some other subjects and in the course of moving on to those subjects, he was drinking some water and he wet his shirt. I do not know whether that was in anticipation of some of the points he was going to make. There were some words that were used: like the Workers' Party wants to put a heavier load on Singaporeans, a fairer, a more punitive load. I think the point of our suggestions really is a more equitable load.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following up on one of the answers. The Minister of State said that it will be less than a year for waiting time. I think one of the recent answers was about five months. My question is, is it now projected to be more than five months or less than five months, in view of the evolving manpower situation? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I am not sure whether Mr Singh has followed the PQs in recent months. I think what he quoted was actually six months – that was in July. But in January, we answered another PQ that we said that it is less than a year. That is recent and the situation remains. What is key is that we are doing our best to do the sprucing up and allocate as early as possible.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a few short questions for the Minister of State. In view of the figures he gave for rental flats that are available today, is there a plan to increase the rental flat supply in Singapore? Is it the Ministry's assessment that that number needs to be increased? The second question is that usage of this word "spruced up". How long does it take to turn around one rental flat, between one applicant who has moved out of the flat, and to get the flat ready for the next person to come in? I ask because if we consider Home Improvement Programme (HIP) timeline of 10 days, for example, to renovate toilets and stuff, then, how long is that period before the flat can be ready for the next tenant to use? And finally, just very quickly, Mr Speaker, for the waiting times, currently, what is the average waiting time for an applicant who has successfully been allocated a rental flat? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. One is about the waiting time. We shared in the reply in January that it is less than a year. And for the supply of rental flats, we have enough rental flats to meet the demand and we will continue to watch this carefully. About the sprucing up, it depends on the condition of the flat that we take over from the tenant. Some may need more time; others can be done quite easily. So, I want to assure Members that we do our best to provide rental flats to all the applicants. And now, with these additional resources, manpower, contractors that we have, we are confident that we will be able to do the sprucing up by the third quarter of this year.”
“It is also an opportunity to reflect on our values as a people. How much do we value the efforts and contributions of those around us, regardless of social economic class or nationality? How does the Singapore system recognise the effort and labour of those who work with their hands like our conservancy and landscape workers, or those who invest their lives in looking after the needs of others or nurturing future generations of Singaporeans, such as our teachers and our nurses? What about our artists and sporting talents? And what about the foreign workers in our midst? Their living and working conditions must be a priority for not just their well-being, but our well-being too. I say for our well-being too because caring for others establishes the standards that we set for ourselves on the type of people we wish to be. While COVID-19 has been debilitating for the economy and for many families, from a community perspective, it reminded us of the nurse, the teacher, the cleaner, the security guard, the bus captain and so many others who continue working to keep Singapore on an even keel. The efforts of these Singaporeans make my colleagues in the Workers' Party and I proud to the Singaporeans. These times have shown the resilience of our people, a subject my colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam, will peg his Budget speech upon. The Workers' Party notes the broad thrust of the Budget and supports the call of greater fairness, sustainability and a more inclusive society, a philosophy that comes with much promise of the future. However, the Workers' Party will object to the Budget as we disagree with the decision to raise the GST.”
“The value proposition for businesses to hire Singaporean workers ought to become more compelling, given the anticipated increases of S Pass qualifying salaries and separately, foreign worker levy hikes announced in the Budget. With the minimum qualifying salary for new S Pass holders increasing from $2,500 to $3,000 this September and further increases already forecasted for September 2024 and 2025, it would be useful for the ITM framework to proactively track, disclose and identify which are the ITM sectors are more reliant on S Pass holders and where there could be opportunities for Singaporean workers. Businesses will also benefit from this information as they can be incentivised to redesign jobs to attract Singaporeans. The same expectation should be set aside for the large taxpayers' dollars set aside for national plans like the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan where $25 billion has been allocated from 2021 to 2025. The outcomes of such initiatives should be a major feature of the new post-pandemic social compact where the Government seeks to renew between citizens and the Government. My colleague, Aljunied Member of Parliament Mr Leon Perera will explore the national goals the Government should focus on aggressively, including poverty alleviation, inequality and social mobility. Ready access to data on outcomes of Government initiatives, including multi-year ones will greatly support all three prongs that Mr Perera will advance. To conclude, COVID-19 was and remains a generational crisis. But it has also proven to be a priceless opportunity to reflect on the robustness of our social compact and the live reality of Singaporeans, particularly at the lower- and lower to middle-income levels.”
“0 since its inception in 2016, 2017, and how many of those jobs went to Singaporeans and at what wage levels? The ITM 1.0 roadmap set out to develop new and redesigned jobs with better wages provide more overseas opportunities and more strongly support Singaporean workers' upgrading and skills deepening. Without numbers, however, it is hard to tell whether these broad and lofty goals were achieved. The overall picture maybe rosy with rising wages and low unemployment maintained. But the precise deliverables of the ITM have to be followed up upon, to know whether outcomes have been meaningful or whether alternative approaches to improve outcomes should be considered. A significant goal of the ITM was to further the interests of Singaporean workers. To this end, the timely reporting of ITM 2025 outcomes should be made a key objective of this Government. When I asked for specific figures for the first ITM outcomes and what it has achieved for Singaporean workers, MOM stated that more time was needed before we could obtain the full data. Surely, enough time has passed for such data to be available, as the planning for ITM 2025 is well underway? If such data is released, it can ameliorate the persistent angst surrounding competition between Singaporeans and foreigners over job opportunities. Further, making such information accessible will help Singaporeans better understand the overall economic landscape so that they can develop their skills in specific industries. This is really about empowering the Singaporean worker to make informed choices surrounding their economic future in line with the nation's. In this regard, the announcement of further adjustments to foreign manpower policies announced by the Finance Minister is instructive.”
“However, unlike the new tiers for personal income tax, the upper end property taxes and ARF hikes for luxury cars announced at the Budget, the Minister did not reveal the absolute quantum of revenue the carbon tax is projected to bring in up to 2030. The Government should reveal these figures. This is not only for the purpose of showing how the carbon tax revenue would be utilised to support decarbonisation, this information will allow meaningful debate to take place on the funding for these decarbonisation measures and whether and how cost of living pressures for the average Singaporean could be further alleviated through the carbon tax. Before concluding, I am reminded that in Singapore, "A"s are not usually given for effort, but for outcomes. With this Budget position as a first step in renewing and strengthening Singapore's social compact, the Government should reveal how it reports on initiatives that were previously announced and whether they met their goals. The new social compact ought to require a report card that goes into far greater detail than the bi-yearly Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review. Let me explain using the Industry Transformation Maps, or ITMs, as an example. A transition is taking place from the original ITM to ITM 2.0, which is now dubbed the ITM 2025. I wish to ask if there is it is a report card of what has been achieved by the initial ITM, especially for deliverables where Singaporean workers are supposed to benefit. In previous exchanges in this House, notably in 2020, we received assurances that Singaporeans are benefiting and are prioritised in such efforts to generate quality jobs so there was no need to worry. To date, however, we do not have a detailed data set, sector-by-sector of how many jobs were generated by ITM 1.”
“The Workers' Party believes that the Government can move the needle for these low-income earning Singaporeans in a decisive way. It would be consistent with the philosophy of this Budget: "Charting our way towards a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society" to alleviate the financial stress of our most vulnerable Singaporeans. In his Budget speech, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, will speak on other segments of Singaporeans who continue to be left behind because their plight has not been adequately addressed. Next, the carbon tax. Singapore's net carbon emission goal, as part of our green transition, recognises the important shifts that are taking place across the globe. The Budget announcement of a carbon tax of $50 to $80 per tonne of emissions by 2030 is consistent with a commitment to mitigate the climate emergency. Hougang Single Member Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Dennis Tan, will focus on Singapore's transition to the green economy in his Budget speech. More generally, Workers' Party Members of Parliament have made several interventions and suggestions during the debate on the climate Motion in this House last month, covering subjects such as greenwashing, just transition and accelerating electric vehicles (EVs) adoption, amongst others. I note the Finance Minister's commitment to provide U-save rebates to the cushion the impact of the carbon tax on households from 2023. Going by the Government's own calculations taken in a linear way, it would follow that a carbon tax of about $ 75 per tonne could potentially increase utility bills by $2 a month.”
“8 billion that the Government has committed each year over the next five years for this scheme. I hope the Government is persuaded to move quickly on this even as discussions on PWM sectors are ongoing. As they already earn very low salaries, these 32,000 workers can and should be supported with higher wages immediately. A second intervention I would suggest for low-income workers amongst us concerns the changes to the Workfare Income Supplement. The Finance Minister has introduced a new minimum income criterion of $500 a month. There was no such criterion in the past. The Minister has said that the policy intent of this is to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work. However, this new criterion will penalise part-timers and casual workers significantly. There are legitimate reasons why Singaporeans take up part time or casual work. Some may be caregivers who do not have the flexibility to take up the full-time work. Others may not be able to stand for eight hours a day, for example, in a food and beverage setting for various reasons, including their advanced years. For some individuals, full-time work can be gruelling; for others, retraining is easier said than done. Yet some others simply cannot find full-time work in the limited areas they are qualified for and take what part-time or casual work they can find. According to the MOM Labour Force, Singapore 2021 data set, there were 46,600 residents who earned less than $500 a month last year. The new criterion will deny the work for Workfare Income Supplement to these workers. I would urge the Minister for Finance to remove this criterion so that our most financially vulnerable workers can benefit from Workfare.”
“What was not fleshed out in significant detail was the Minister's commitment that the Government intends to refine how Employment Pass (EP) applications are assessed to increase certainty and transparency for businesses. Even while it is a given that Singapore will always be open to foreign talent, we must always prioritise Singaporean talent who represent the Singapore Core. If a Singaporean can do the job or be trained to do the job, the Government should not inadvertently make it easier or more convenient to resort to hiring foreigners. I hope Minister will share more details of the Government's thinking on the new EP framework in his wrap-up speech. The Budget also renders important support to businesses to ensure that our workers at the lower end of the salary spectrum will see meaningful salary increments. In this regard, I hope the Minister for Finance can consider moving more decisively to ensure that Singaporean workers who take home less than $1,300 can rely on the PWM Credit Scheme to raise their wages immediately. With the PWM Credit Scheme as announced by this Budget, I would argue that this can be achieved forthwith instead of waiting for all PWM sectors to be rolled out incrementally before the low-wage situation for these workers is addressed. Let me explain. Assuming that we want to provide immediate relief to the 32,000 full-time Singaporean workers who earn less than $1,300 with a generous $400 a month wage hike for 13 months each financial year, a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that it would require about $167 million year to significantly uplift the well-being of these lower-income workers. This sum would constitute 8% of the $2 billion set aside under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) Credit Scheme and only 9.2% of the $1.”
“If they do not, then it would be legitimate for the Committee to inquire why this is the case. Third, the Committee should look into the businesses that move to raise prices before the GST hike is introduced. It should not rule out looking into complaints of such pre-emptive price rises that try to bypass the Committee's terms of reference. SMEs, hawkers and sole proprietors should be allowed to respond to the Committee if they have been falsely or unfairly accused of raising prices. Finally, the Committee should closely track price rises at heartland shops where many Singaporeans purchase food and essentials. Minister of State Ms Low Yen Ling has written to me to nominate one Member from the Opposition benches to sit on this Committee. I have extended this invitation to our Parliamentary colleagues from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Hazel Poa has agreed to sit on the Committee. Let me now move to topics other than the GST. The Workers' Party is of the view that the Budget is broad-based in providing assistance to individuals and businesses to address both immediate as well as short to medium term concerns. Specifically, it provides a useful transitional support such as the Small Business Recovery Grant to businesses in eligible sectors that have been hit hard by COVID-19. One input we have is to ask the Government to actively consider appeals from businesses that fall outside the eligibility criteria on a more flexible and case-by-case basis as far as possible. We also support CPF transition offsets to help phase in the raising of employer and employee CPF contribution rates for senior workers. This raising of rates is vitally important in supporting the retirement adequacy of senior workers.”
“While measured in cents, these increases are by no means small to many who have to incur these costs every day – not as a luxury or as discretionary spending, but as an unavoidable expense simply to get to work and back. About three weeks ago, ComfortDelGro Taxi announced an increase in fares by 8%. Just last Friday, all the other taxi companies announced that they would follow suit. All these and the other inevitable price hikes to come over the next five to 10 years will blunt the impact of the GST Assurance Package, to say nothing of the psychological impact of the package's reduced effectiveness against a backdrop of rising prices. The Workers' Party's position on the GST notwithstanding, I welcome the announcement of the formation of a Committee Against Profiteering to address concerns that some businesses could use GST as a cover to raise prices. I would like to raise a few issues relating to the Committee. First, in order for this Committee to be effective, the public should be clearly informed as to what evidence they would need to file a complaint with the Committee. Otherwise, it would be a case of the word of a person against that of a business. Second, at a time when inflation due to the supply chain crunch is a real concern, some businesses may have good reason to raise prices, or a legitimate reason to raise prices. For example, because of the rising price of raw materials and not under the pretext of the GST hike. This may cause misunderstanding amongst the public about resorting to the Committee to investigate the price hikes. But if rising business costs are due to supply chain woes, then prices should correct in time and even fall as the supply chain crunch eases.”
“What continues to weigh heavily on Singaporeans today is the rising cost of living, including for the middle-income or "sandwiched" class. Cost increases in electricity, gas and transport were thrust upon Singaporeans last year and over the last few months. Energy prices continue to rise. The enthusiasm with which the Government spoke of the electricity retail market in 2018 as a means to manage the cost of living has become decidedly more muted with the exit of multiple retail players. In December, the electricity tariff for households was raised by 0.6% and there was a recent revision of household refuse collection fees which took effect last month after a previous hike in 2017. A TODAY article from late October last year quoted the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) predicting that food, preschool and healthcare costs may go up this year. In view of the current economic outlook, it is safe to say that this is a foregone conclusion. According to data released by the MAS and MTI last week, the headline CPI remains at what it was last December at 4%. CPI data from last month show that utilities and other fuels rose 11.8% compared to a year earlier and transport is up 12.7% year-on-year. Lower-income Singaporeans, working Singaporeans and middle-class Singaporeans are all being hit very, very hard. There is also a pattern of increasing public transport fares over the last three years, as shown in information from the Public Transport Council. While adult card fares were alternatingly increased and reduced between 2014 and 2017, they were raised by six cents in 2018, a further nine cents in 2019 and then another three to four cents in 2020.”
“My colleague, Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru, will speak more about the GST. Like now, the concerns back in the 1990s were about the average Singaporean worker who was vulnerable to increases in the prices of necessities. Today, with offset packages targeting low- and middle-income Singaporeans, it is the middle-class that is particularly anxious. In spite of the headline-grabbing GST offset package announced at this Budget, there is an anxiety as to how much prices will rise in future over the period the offset package would cover. In addition to the concerns about spikes for specific Consumer Price Index (CPI) items, there are also concerns about minor price hikes across the board that will hurt cumulatively, not too different from the analogy of the frog in a pot of gradually boiling water. Should the aggregate of price rises be significant, the impact of the additional offsets may not be as optimistic as highlighted in Annex F–2 of the Budget Statement for 3-room and 4-room HDB households where the enhanced Assurance Package is estimated to offset the GST hike of 11.8 and 7.9 years respectively. As Singaporeans well know, no offset package lasts forever. The Government expects that, in time, Singaporeans will internalise the GST hike. At this Budget debate, the Workers' Party will raise additional alternative proposals to raise revenue so as to stave off the GST hike. In particular, Sengkang GRC Members of Parliament, Louis Chua and Jamus Lim, would explore other levers for revenue generation. Apart from the reserves' framework, the alternatives proposed are not inconsistent with the principle that recurrent expenditures should be backed by recurrent revenues.”
“This is so that the necessity of a GST hike can be considered properly and with greater introspection. We note that the Government has resisted the publication of such revenue and expenditure projections, but the publication of such information is not unusual in other jurisdictions. Just last week, on 23 February, the Hong Kong government issued its budget statement. At Appendix A, the Hong Kong budget includes a medium range forecast of its revenue and expenditure positions for each subsequent year up to fiscal year 2026 to 2027, with assumptions laid out. Can the Minister tell us why MOF does not make such medium-term forecasting a part of our public-facing budgetary process? And, more specifically, does MOF have such projections at least up to five years in the future? And what is the hesitation in publishing these projections? Doing so would allow the public to have an in-depth insight as to the need to raise GST and the sustainability of public finances in the years to come. The question of projections with respect to public finances must also be considered in the context of the absolute necessity of raising the GST at this point in time. For example, a Business Times article today advanced the view held by market watchers that Singapore could potentially make a net gain in terms of revenue from the global move to introduce a standardised minimum corporate tax rate. Even so, it is of little doubt that the GST has been put to good use by the Government to finance spending. But after more than two decades, its drawbacks remain. The GST is a regressive tax that hits lower-income earners harder. And this fact has been recognised since the GST was introduced in the early 1990s.”
“While it is responsible to ensure that wastage is minimised as far as possible, our healthcare needs will likely be on an upward trajectory. For the very Singaporeans whose energies contributed to the reserves and who have played their part to fatten the golden goose, spending for them in their golden years and at their time of need should not even be a question. Moderating the growth of the reserves also improves intergenerational equity and accounts for the changing needs of Singapore and its people. It must be noted that the Government has shown, over time, that they are of a similar mind. At the 2001 National Day Rally, then-Prime Minister Goh said that the reserves must be protected and fattened. However, changes to the reserves scheme have been implemented by subsequent PAP Governments. The 2008 change of the Net Investment Income to Net Investment Returns (NIR) with the immediate conclusion of up to 50% of NIR contributions from MAS and GIC and the inclusion of Temasek in the NIRC formula in 2015 were all deliberate moves. These changes have made the NIRC component the largest source of revenue for the yearly Budget from around $2 billion in 2006 to close to $22 billion for the upcoming financial year. This number will only continue rising. This is despite the fact that the Government's adjustments have slowed the rate at which the reserves grow. Here, I ask that the Government not rule out changes to our Budget framework. Just as we should not kill the golden goose, we should also not fatten the golden goose at the expense of the people's well-being. On the necessity of a GST hike, the Workers' Party has also made the point that the Government should lay out its revenue and expenditure projections for the rest of the decade.”
“As the Government continues to explore wealth taxes, the Workers' Party's view is that a distinction needs to be made between different types of wealth taxes. We should recognise the legitimate accumulation of wealth through effort and tangible business activity, especially that which creates jobs for Singaporeans. Even as there remains scope for wealth taxes, the values of entrepreneurship and equitable reward for hard work can, nonetheless, be recognised and even promoted through tax rebates or relief for such individuals. However, wealth accumulated through capital appreciation should be dealt with differently and taxed accordingly in the name of a fairer and more inclusive society. The Workers' Party has also previously asked if we can tweak the reserves framework and the way reserves contribute to our Budget. We have proposed including a portion of land sales into recurrent revenue and also an adjustment of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) allowed for recurrent spending to be raised to 60% from the current 50%. The Government has disagreed with these reasonable suggestions. In 2001, then-Prime Minister Goh referred to the reserves as a golden goose. The Workers' Party remains of the mind that we can continue to grow the golden goose, but at a slower rate. The impending population bulge for our seniors portends stress lines for our healthcare needs and our welfare system. The Minister projected that, starting from current levels of healthcare spending and assuming increases at a similar rate in the next 10 years, the Government could be spending $27 billion on healthcare yearly by 2030, compared to $11.3 billion in 2019. But, the fact is that our population is getting older and living longer.”
“The GST was held up as being one of the largest and most stable revenue sources, difficult to replace with any other kind of tax. The impression created by the article and similar arguments was that raising the GST is the only viable option for financing offset packages for the needy and healthcare, and to balance the Budget. We disagree that there are no other options. The Workers' Party has previously raised several proposals in this House, both on taxes, as well as adjustments to the reserves framework. These options do not constitute a raiding of the reserves, as the PAP enthusiastically and inaccurately portrays. We have supported the call for fiscal prudence as a principle of governance. But we also believe that the judicious use of progressive tax measures can achieve wider societal goals in Singapore. Within this term of Parliament, we have proposed a wealth tax and raised the prospect of more progressive corporate tax policies. We have also supported the carbon tax. The Government, for its part, has not rejected further wealth taxes outright but spoke of the difficulties of implementing some of these tax measures. These will have to be proactively explored, particularly in view of the limited impact of some measures announced in the Budget, which had been characterised as a tax on wealth. For example, on the additional registration fee, or ARF tier, for luxury cars announced by the Minister for Finance, a senior manager of a large car dealership which includes luxury vehicles in its stable, was asked if the higher ARF would curb spending on high-end cars. He was quoted in The Business Times as saying: "It is possible, but I think there's still enough wealth going around".”
“Mr Speaker, what caught my attention about the Budget speech was the Minister for Finance's characterisation of the Budget as a first step to renew and strengthen Singapore's social compact towards a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society. The Workers' Party agrees with this important direction in pathfinding the way forward for our little red dot. Workers' Party Chair and Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Ms Sylvia Lim, will speak further on this, with inputs on inclusivity and innovation in her Budget debate speech tomorrow. However, there are aspects of the Budget that are of concern to us. We disagree with the decision to raise the Goods and Services Tax, especially at this time, and the Workers' Party Members of Parliament who speak after me will put forward alternative ideas for revenue generation. I will outline the Workers' Party's position on the GST and briefly introduce the areas that Workers' Party Members of Parliament will speak on. Then, I will share my views on the main prongs of the Budget. First, the GST increase. While the GST hike was anticipated, it comes at a difficult time for our people. Inflation is on the upswing and prices are high. Supply chain disruptions are having an outsized impact on people's purses. There is real concern on the ground that the announcement to raise the GST will lead to price rises across the board. In fact, some price rises have already occurred, with speculation that these were in anticipation of a GST hike. The Workers' Party's position is that the Government need not raise the GST. There are other options for raising revenue. A Straits Times column last month discussed the urgency of rebuilding public finances in the face of Budget deficits and the drawdown of reserves.”
“Yes. [(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]”